Smith: When to believe the results of polling

To my regret, I hung up the telephone on Wednesday while talking to a man who didn't believe the results of a Field Poll that showed 61 percent of voters say it is more important to control guns and ammunition than to protect the rights of gun owners.

The caller is a person I've spoken to in the past about firearms. I consider him very knowledgeable. However, as I've discovered over the years, sometimes it's impossible to reason with people on some topics. I'm probably the same way.

In this case, the Field Poll was very specific, finding more than eight in 10 voters favor spending more money to confiscate guns from convicted felons. Three-quarters favor permits and background checks for anyone buying ammunition. It also found roughly 60 percent favor a tax on bullets to fund violence-prevention programs, outlawing ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, and banning rifles with detachable magazines. Asked whether specially trained teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school, 68 percent said no. That idea was opposed by 74 percent of women and 60 percent of men.

The caller questioned where the poll was taken and said it was most likely done in "Pelosi's District," implying that only "liberal" people from San Francisco were questioned. Granted I don't know who specifically was polled, but I do know the Field Poll is a reputable guide to what people are thinking because it uses computerized sampling models.

Another Field Poll released Thursday morning found that a record 61 percent of Californians now approve of allowing same-sex couples to marry. The poll found 78 percent support among people 39 and younger and a solid majority of middle-aged residents now back gay marriage -- 56 percent. Even among senior citizens there is 48 percent support, compared with 42 percent against.

So, we have two separate polls on two separate topics done by the same agency with results that are very close to one another.

Maybe my caller has a point; except he could offer no direct evidence that the gun poll was skewed to favor those who are against firearms. All he had was a suspicion because the views expressed in the poll didn't jibe with the people he knew, and perhaps those who live in Northern California.

Where have we heard this sort of thing before? The most recent example was during the last presidential election, where conservative pollsters showed that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had a lock on winning the election. Of course, liberal pollsters showed Obama had a lock on being re-elected. That left it to blogger Nate Silver to boil down the numbers and predict that Obama would sweep the election. Those opposed to Obama disagreed and blasted Silver's results.

The disagreement continued to election night itself, when GOP consultant and FOX News commentator Karl Rove took issue with the polling information being gathered by FOX News itself which showed Obama was ahead in key districts to win the election.

The issue was illustrated by Rove himself on how important it is to not let personal bias influence statistical analysis. That's why there are professional pollsters using specially designed computers with specially designed programs are counted on to take the "pulse of the public."

Of course, not every poll is correct, but the good polling companies are still in business for very good reasons: Their results are usually within a few percentage points of being dead on.

So, with respect to the caller not buying the change in attitude toward guns: Yes, be suspicious, but make sure you can back up your suspicions with fact and not personal bias.